Anthropocentric Indirect Arguments for Environmental Protection

摘要

Environmental ethicists have devoted considerable attention to discussing whether anthropocentric or nonanthropocentric arguments provide more appropriate means for defending environmental protection. This paper argues that philosophers, scientists, and policy makers should pay more attention to a particular type of anthropocentric argument. These anthropocentric indirect arguments (AIAs) defend actions or policies that benefit the environment, but they justify the policies based on beneficial effects on humans (e.g., new jobs, cost savings, stronger communities) that are not caused by their environmental benefits. AIAs appear to have numerous appealing characteristics, and their weaknesses do not provide compelling reasons to avoid them. Elucidating these arguments should inspire social scientists and philosophers to study the range of situations in which AIAs can be ethically and effectively employed and the extent to which they increase or diminish public support for environmentalism.